LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:50): I want to make some observations today about how business in this chamber is conducted. Whilst most members of the public show very little interest in parliamentary proceedings, they do expect us to be efficient and diligent in the execution of our parliamentary duties. The public pay for parliament; they have a right to see that it is managed properly.

The recent downgrading of ministerial representation in this chamber is a real challenge to the efficient functioning of the council. However, even before the current situation of only a single minister in the Legislative Council, it was apparent to me that considerable improvement could still be made to the way in which business in this house is conducted. For a start, the priorities of each sitting day need to be clarified. The practice of publishing a priority letter that lists all, or nearly all, government business for the following sitting week is unhelpful. It tells us that everything is a priority, and when everything is a priority nothing is a priority.

The priority letter should also include the relative priority of items of business and a commitment by the government to deal with matters in that order as far as possible. Where this order changes, members should be notified with as much advance notice as possible. The priority letter should also be more open and honest about critical dates and the consequences of not passing legislation within a certain time. For example, we know that, for sound administrative reasons, having a bill passed and operative by the start of the financial year can make a lot of sense.

We also have situations where a particular federal government incentive or a penalty might apply if a certain bill is not passed by a certain date. Knowing these dates would assist members of parliament in prioritising in their work. It does not guarantee that a bill will pass, but it does provide valuable information that will help with more appropriate scrutiny and consideration of legislation. That said, my plea to government is: do not lie to us. In the past, the government has cried wolf only to be found to have completely misrepresented the urgency of a particular bill.

As well as more information in the weekly priority letter, the daily whipping sheet distributed by the government and the opposition should also make clear the order in which business will be dealt with. Every other business meeting has a clear and prioritised agenda, why should parliament be any different? We have all been in the situation where a bill on which we wished to speak is listed at a much lower priority than other bills, yet it is called on for debate early in the day without warning, and this often means members running up or down the stairs to their office to retrieve files and speech notes. Yes, we all need to be flexible and ready to debate bills, but the order of business on some days seems to be entirely random and unpredictable. We can avoid dead air in the chamber with better planning and better communications.

It is also discourteous to members not to be told what is going on, and a good example is condolence motions. In the majority of cases, the first that crossbench members find out that there is to be a condolence motion is when standing orders are suspended, and that is no help to a member who may have wanted to make a contribution if only they had been given more notice. Presumably, the government knows days beforehand that a condolence motion will be moved. It is discourteous not to tell all members of parliament to enable them to prepare a contribution if they so choose.

In relation to bills, I do not think it makes sense for members to have to watch the public gallery to see which public servants or advisers have turned up in order for them to guess which bill is about to go into committee. Sometimes, ministers and whips will do the rounds of the chamber and advise us of government intentions and desires but not always. On other occasions, a question posed to the whips, 'What are we doing next?' results in the answer, 'I don't know; it's up to the minister.' How remarkable is that?

I note that the Hon. Michelle Lensink, back in February this year, wrote to all MLCs to express her frustration at the way in which business was being conducted in this chamber. Her particular concerns related to the rushing through of legislation, against convention and often in the face of negotiated arrangements through the party whips. I echo her concerns.

In conclusion, we can and must do better if this council is to function efficiently and appropriately as a legislative chamber. Clearly, there needs to be give and take to deal with changed circumstances. If there are genuine reasons to change the order and priority of the business before us, a courteous and professional approach will most often yield cooperation and results. The government should remember that it holds only one-third of the votes in this place and that the patience of the other two-thirds is not unlimited.